T-Grain vs. Cubic Grain B&W: Is one better for scanning?

Hi All--

I was just thinking about this as I'm contemplating a couple new projects.

All other factors being kept equal...Is there anything in particular about a T-Grain B&W film that would make it better or worse suited to scanning than a traditional cubic grain B&W film? Do T-Grain films minimize (or make worse) grain aliasing, for example?

Or is it just a matter of choosing what I like?

Thanks--

Greg

Choosing cubic grain vs. tabular grain or vice versa can be a matter of taste indeed. I personally prefer cubic grain vs. tabular grain because it looks more natural "to me". If I'm going I see grain, I want it to look like grain... Meanwhile, tabular grain films are better technically. (Much more resolution and no shoulder...) Given that, I still prefer cubic grain films because that's what I'm used to in terms of working procedures and visual results.

OTOH, grain aliasing isn't related to grain type AFAIK; grain aliasing is a parameter of grain size (plus, grain shape and sharpness) and scanner/scanning resolution. Since developers and development conditions also affect grain size/shape and sharpness I would add these as parameters too.

Some grain size / scanning resolution combinations will definitely cause grain aliasing. Higher end scanner resolutions (>= 5000ppi) are usually less prone to grain aliasing BTW...

gmikol said:

All other factors being kept equal...Is there anything in particular about a T-Grain B&W film that would make it better or worse suited to scanning than a traditional cubic grain B&W film? Do T-Grain films minimize (or make worse) grain aliasing, for example?

Click to expand...

In general (don't you love generalities?) less graininess makes for less grain aliasing, because the size of the grain clumps is not as close to the size and spacing of the photo detectors. This is one consideration for scanning then.

Another consideration is Callier Effect. This is primarily light scatter from the edges of the physical grain structure. And if the grains are flatter, they have less edge area with which to scatter the light of scanning. This makes the resulting scans just a bit sharper and also improves local contrast in the highlights.

What might override this is of course your personal preference for the spectral response of a particular film / developer combination. You can largely replicate this "look" in photoshop, making one film look largely like any other. But it can be some work and some people prefer to get that look directly from the film without the manipulation.

Me, for my own work, it's all TMY-2. I love the spectral response. I love the lack of grain in general and the local contrast, especially in the highlights. But clearly, YMMV.

reading the "grain aliasing" thing moves me to bring people's attention to this older article.

It is worth noting the credentials of the author:

For thirty years Roger Smith has been the scientific photographer in the Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Click to expand...

from the articles main point:

As a scientific photographer, I have access to a selection of high-power microscopes, so I decided to have a closer look at some of the offending slides. Under a microscope set for 400x magnification, I could clearly see that the offending speckles were actually microscopic bubbles embedded in the film. Fig. 3 is from a small area inside the 8 of the previous figures, taken with a Nikon Coolpix 995 digital camera on a Leitz microscope. The highly refractory nature of these bubbles would most likely make them visible to scanners, especially those scanners that tend to emphasize film flaws.

Click to expand...

and a picture which paints a "thousand words" from that article:

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Based on what Bruce says, it seems like a t-grain film might provide a technically superior scan, but if I don't like how t-grain films look, then what's the point of an excellent scan?

I think I'll stick with my FP4+ and HP5+ for now, and run a controlled test when I have an opportunity.

--Greg

gmikol said:

...it seems like a t-grain film might provide a technically superior scan, but if I don't like how t-grain films look, then what's the point of an excellent scan?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

gmikol said:

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Based on what Bruce says, it seems like a t-grain film might provide a technically superior scan, but if I don't like how t-grain films look, then what's the point of an excellent scan?

I think I'll stick with my FP4+ and HP5+ for now, and run a controlled test when I have an opportunity.

--Greg

Click to expand...

Greg

Give Neopan 400 a try. The fine grain Delta 400, and the wonderful tonality of Tri-X. It's a non T (tabular) grained film.

pellicle said:

reading the "grain aliasing" thing moves me to bring people's attention to this older article.

Click to expand...

From that article:
"No-one was quite sure what it is but finally Fuji have made comment and I can accept that it is an artifact caused by the combination of a rougher film base and high-res dry scans" .


Heh! I've only been pointing this out for over 4 years now...

The bubbles thing is also a factor but with old Provia only and if used with a "hard light" scanner. Something like a 9000 for example, we don't have this problem. With the older 8000, yes, and with just about every other LED-lighted scanner. But again: use Ice and it is gone in most cases. And no, Ice does not necessarily cause a *huge* deterioration of the scanned result! It all depends on the software process applied to apply the IR info.

Most of the information in these classic "film scanning" sites is grossly out of date or just plain innacurate.

pellicle has one of the best reference sites for modern film scanning using modern flatbed scanners. And he has run his tests with modern film emulsions, not Kodak Gold from the 70s: there is a world of difference between an older emulsion and a modern one designed specifically for good scanning.

In my gallery below and its associated diary posts, there are quite a few examples of what is possible with modern film and a high quality modern scanner. It's night and day from the old fuzzy, pepper-grain stuff.

There is no reason whatsoever why someone armed with the latest film and scanner technology cannot match 20MP easily with 4000dpi scans of 35mm. Unthinkable a few years ago by all the folks claiming 35mm film is only good for 6MP max. Hey, I have clear proof that 35mm can do better than >20MP, it's online. And I'm not a professional!

Mind you: 10MP nowadays is enough for high quality 8X10 printing, which is more than 99% of the folks out there do at any stage. And that basically shows for the vast majority of amateur level prints, film and scanning are as good as digital-only images.

As for online images, anyone trying to tell me an 800X600 web image taken with a 24MP dslr has "better definition" than one taken with a 6MP p&S, is, quite frankly, working on fumes...

This all to say that the distinction between flat or cubic grain results with a mixed workflow is more academic nowadays than anything else. Use whatever you think gives you a good gradation and great tonal depth and go with it.

I use Acros 100 for a lot of b&w stuff, which I believe is a flat grain film. But when I want the ultimate I go for Adox CMS20 on Technidol: it is simply outstanding. And I'm getting very good tonal results as well with Efke kb25 on Rodinal 1:100, go figure!